[QUOTE=McGee;33794382]If you move to Ipswich or the Sunshine coast you'll regret it
The sunshine coast is good if you are only interested in the beach and nothing else in life. [/quote]
Yeah, I'd like to move near Brisbane more towards the side of the Gold Coast. I'd like to actually live on the Gold Coast (somewhere near Coolangatta, say - or a bit further up), but it's a little too far from the universities I'm looking at.
I have been to Cairns, but it's too hot and touristy for my liking. Although I'd probably take it over Melbourne if given the choice.
i want to do a roadtrip this weekend. where to go from melbourne
[QUOTE=DogGunn;33795209]i want to do a roadtrip this weekend. where to go from melbourne[/QUOTE]
go to brisbane and back
and this time, something more reasonable :p
16 hours till I get on my flight, I've been on planes more than 20 times in my life and I still have a fear of flying.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33794636]Yeah, I'd like to move near Brisbane more towards the side of the Gold Coast. I'd like to actually live on the Gold Coast (somewhere near Coolangatta, say - or a bit further up), but it's a little too far from the universities I'm looking at.
I have been to Cairns, but it's too hot and touristy for my liking. Although I'd probably take it over Melbourne if given the choice.[/QUOTE]
ALICE SPRINGS TOPS ALL
I have been wondering, what is everyone's opinion on this "stop the boats" thing?
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33805007]ALICE SPRINGS TOPS ALL[/QUOTE]
Alice springs is a shit hole, one of the few shittier holes in the NT than darwin.
[QUOTE=-n3o-;33806223]I have been wondering, what is everyone's opinion on this "stop the boats" thing?[/QUOTE]
Complete idiocy fueled by the mob and current affairs shows.
Today Tonight literally had a Migrants vs the Unemployed story on last night. They just don't give a fuck.
Catching a plane in a few hours, glad the sky cleared up.
[QUOTE=-n3o-;33806223]I have been wondering, what is everyone's opinion on this "stop the boats" thing?[/QUOTE]
I think the better question is why we are keeping these people in detention, only recently the Department of Immigration and a few companies which run the centres were found to be grossly negligent in dealing with 3 cases of suicide. It's a gigantic farce to worry about boats when there are abuses of human rights as a direct result of government policy.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
and the overseas 'solutions' proposed by both major parties are only provisions to take the issue of the detainee's human rights out of their hands
[QUOTE=DogGunn;33795209]i want to do a roadtrip this weekend. where to go from melbourne[/QUOTE]
Go to the otways or the grampians. Should be good this time of the year.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;33808250]I think the better question is why we are keeping these people in detention, only recently the Department of Immigration and a few companies which run the centres were found to be grossly negligent in dealing with 3 cases of suicide. It's a gigantic farce to worry about boats when there are abuses of human rights as a direct result of government policy.[/quote]
In one of my uni subjects this semester we talked about this. One of the readings we were given asserted that these suicides and incidences of self-harm and whatnot are actually, in a way, positive for the government - so they can say they're protecting these people (or savages) from themselves, whilst protecting the community. Because if they're engaging in that kind of behaviour, clearly they shouldn't be let out into our society, and thus locking them up makes sense. It's been used by politicians as a reason for doing so.
Which, obviously, is absolutely fucked.
Something that really shits me is how people keep saying, "John Howard kept the boats out of Australia!". Well, yes - because he reclassified the waters and islands around Australia as not being part of Australia.
Anyhow, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants don't come to Australia by boat, so it's all political bullshit anyhow. Not to mention that the largest number of illegal immigrants come from Britain and the UK - but they're not seen as a threat, of course.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
By which I mean 'Britain and the US'. Aha.
Ah but you see they're white
[QUOTE=-n3o-;33806223]I have been wondering, what is everyone's opinion on this "stop the boats" thing?[/QUOTE]
"boat people" who go through it properly are 100% fine, dont give a fuck about them
those that try to get in sneakily though I have a problem with, why should they get to cut the line
it should be made 10x quicker to do it legally, fuck abbott fuck bogans fuck joolia
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;33808250]I think the better question is why we are keeping these people in detention, only recently the Department of Immigration and a few companies which run the centres were found to be grossly negligent in dealing with 3 cases of suicide. It's a gigantic farce to worry about boats when there are abuses of human rights as a direct result of government policy.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
and the overseas 'solutions' proposed by both major parties are only provisions to take the issue of the detainee's human rights out of their hands[/QUOTE]
this too
They get to 'cut the line' because they claim that they're going to be persecuted if they go back.
There is not available mechanism for them to do it in any other way.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
besides community placement works well enough, I don't see any reason to detain them in concentration camps
No, I mean people who sneak in.
People are people regardless of whether or not they will be persecuted and should be treated right
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
aka not sent to malasia
Whenever I hear the term boat people I have this mental image of a stormy beach at night time with a light house slowly spinning in the background, in the foreground on the stormy, rocky beach a huge monstrosity of a creature made from several, rusting boats all welded together climbs out of the water, onto the beach, raises its 'head' up into the air, and lets out an angry blast from its fog horn(s).
What's the difference between someone who sneaks in illegally and someone who just comes here normal illegally? If they are an asylum seeking refugee then we have an obligation to take them just so they have a stable place free of persecution or danger.
Indefinite detention really is the stupidest thing around though. The Greens suggested a one month maximum detention and I somewhat agree with them. Enough to make sure they aren't a security or health risk and then put them somewhere they can try and be a good citizen. A kind of parole and if they break it, consequences. Maybe 2 months or whatever, extra time if they present evidence of something fishy maybe.
but that's just it - if they're an asylum seeking refugee. but what if they're not?
don't get me wrong, i'm not about to launch into a "SEND THEM BACK WE'RE FULL" tirade. but while people spend a bit in indonesia before attempting to illegally enter here, i can't help thinking of those in, say, kenya, who've been waiting for 10 years for legal resettlement in appalling conditions. while camps in indonesia, etc would hardly be pleasant places to live, if others can endure it, why can't they? that's my sticking point on the whole "boat people" issue - i don't see how it's fair for those waiting out a painstakingly long legal process to lose their spots to those who can pay a bit of cash to make a perilous and illegal entry. hence, imo, ideal solution needs to be speeding up our legal refugee and immigration processes on all ends, so that all can come to australia in good time - but also giving preference to those who've waited the longest.
The thing is, if they are in a position to engage in the relatively expensive legal options for immigration, then they aren't of the highest importance.
[quote]The notion that people who seek asylum in Australia have always been selected from a queue from those whose claims have been verified by the UNHCR is patently false, as no such queue exists. [B]In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are no queues to jump. Australia has no consular presence in these countries, by far our largest source of asylum seekers. Therefore there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered.[/B]
Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such, asylum seekers are forced to travel to another country to find protection. People who are afraid of their lives have been fleeing from the world’s most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq.
In any case, for several decades now Australia’s immigration program has had onshore and offshore components, which allowed people to seek asylum as refugees from outside as well as from within Australia. The offshore humanitarian component has been determined by various priorities and criteria established by the Australian government.
[B]In other words Australia has “picked/chosen” who it wanted and it certainly has not been on the basis of their place in a “queue”. It is therefore duplicitous to talk of asylum seekers depriving more deserving refugees languishing in refugee camps around the world.[/B]
The only queue jumping that occurs in relation to Australia’s immigration program is a direct consequence of the uneven distribution of its overseas immigration staff. Consequently, from a global perspective, immigrants are not processed in the order that they apply to migrate to Australia. Some are able to “jump the queue” if they apply from countries which have a disproportionate share of these staff.
[/quote]
It is far, far more likely that an Islamic terrorist will be here on a tourist Saudi Arabian or Indonesian visa then go through the ridiculously difficult detainment and verification process.
person a can stay in some shitty camp for years waiting
person b can spend money and get on a boat and skip everything
the person i care more about is person a
person a does not exist
Except person a and person b are in completely different countries and you can't compare their situations.
besides, if the government in unable to process 4,000 more claims a year, then it should be sacked for being utterly fucking incompetent
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
it's a false dichotomy and I hate it
i already said that i think the system should be changed
jesus fuck why are washing machines so expensive
I'm just going to attach drum hubcaps to my car, and put clothes, detergent and some water in before I go for a drive
what could possibly go wrong?
Eugh people who say this shit drive me crazy.
The countries that asylum seekers are coming from most likely do not have Australian embassies. There's no 'queue', so they cannot be 'queue jumpers'. For people in the countries that [i]do[/i] have embassies, they are often prosecuted for their political/social beliefs, and will be killed if they try to immigrate legally. It's also expensive, as Contag said.
Seriously, if someone is desperate enough to come to Australia on one of those shitty, small, leaky boats, having likely given their life savings to people smugglers - they deserve to be let in. You don't do that for fun.
Why the fuck do we get to say no to those people on the basis that we, out of no effort of our own, were lucky enough to be born here.
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
Also I really fucking hate the term 'boat people', but at least we don't use 'illegal aliens' like they do in the US.
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;33809865]Ah but you see they're white[/QUOTE]
That's it.
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;33812789]jesus fuck why are washing machines so expensive
I'm just going to attach drum hubcaps to my car, and put clothes, detergent and some water in before I go for a drive
what could possibly go wrong?[/QUOTE]
Please remember that you wash all of my clothes, too.
[QUOTE=Contag;33811018]person a does not exist[/QUOTE]
yes they do
see: africa
waiting in their UN camps isn't a "relatively expensive legal option", it's a refugee camp - they don't have anything. now, frankly, it is true to say that there is no valid refugee process in afghanistan or iraq, for example. however, no-one takes a boat from afghanistan to australia. the majority of "boat people" pass through multiple countries, including INDONESIA, which has UNHCR camps. that's the problem - if you're ignoring that option simply because you want to get to australia faster, then yes, you're (to use that horrid metaphor) "jumping the queue" over those who wait in those same camps for legal resettlement, as in other countries. this stands completely seperate from any criteria the australian government has for choosing resettlement - i sincerely doubt that the australian government chooses illegal immigrants over legal ones.
I don't think people should have to wait in refugee camps to come over here. Have you read anything about what goes on there? Those places are shocking - people get raped and assaulted as a frequent occurrence. It's a hellish place to put someone.
Also, if you've given your life savings to a people smuggler, you're hardly in control of where you stop or go. I don't blame people for choosing Australia over Indonesia as a destination because we're presumed to be able to give them a better lifestyle.
We've got the space, the money, and the resources. We need more infrastructure, but that's the fault of the government - not illegal immigrants, as they hold. Australia gets so few asylum seekers comparatively; it's ridiculous. For us to legitimately be a signatory to the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we [i]cannot[/i] turn away these people, or put them in indefinite detention. It's illegal for us to do what we do (or it would be, if international law meant anything).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
